YB,Re: Libellous StatementWe act for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who is the Former Deputy Prime Minister and is presently the Leader of the Opposition in the Malaysian Parliament.We are instructed that on or about 16th May 2009, you uttered and or made a statement at the State Department in Washington during a joint press conference with US secretary of State Mrs. Clinton, that was published and/or caused to be published by Associated Press and was consequently carried by The Star Newspaper (and several local print and electronic media), which was captioned as “Anwar offered me the DPM’s post, says Anifah” which is reproduced in full and verbatim hereinbelow:“Anwar offered me the DPM’s post, says AnifahWashington: Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah Aman has revealed that Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had offered him the post of Deputy Prime Minister as bait to switch sides after the general election last year.“Just for the information of the audience here, Anwar said he would form a government on Sept 16 but he has changed the dates many times. And he was trying to entice Members of Parliament.“I was personally offered a very lucrative position, like a deputy prime ministership. These facts are not known to the world at large,” he said during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which was packed with American and foreign journalists.“And he has started trying to buy other legislative members. I think he has not accepted the result of the last elections.“We (Barisan Nasional) have lost five states and we willingly accept the people’s verdict.”A Reuters journalist had earlier asked Clinton whether she raised the Anwar issue at her meeting with Anifah as the State Department’s annual human rights report had mentioned that charges against Anwar were politically motivated.Clinton replied that she had raised the rule of law issues and larger questions concerning institutional reforms that Malaysia had been pursuing.Anifah, who was clam throughout, said he had faith in Malaysia’s judicial system, citing the case of Perak where the High Court had reinstated Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Menteri Besar although it was a ruling made against the Federal Government.Anifah said Anwar was tarnishing the image of Malaysia.“It is our wish and hope that he will respect the democratic system in Malaysia.”Anifah told another journalist that Malaysia would use the “good office” of the Asean secretariat to find a solution to the case involving Myanmar’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi who faces new charges less than two weeks before her house arrest was due to end after an American man swam across a lake and entered her home.On improving US relations with Islamic countries, Clinton said that United States would seek out partners like Malaysia and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference for guidance.” (hereinafter called “the Impugned Article”).Inter alia, the Impugned Article contained the following defamatory words uttered and or quoted by you about our client:i. “Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah Aman has revealed that Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had offered him the post of Deputy Prime Minister as bait to switch sides after the general election last year.”ii. “Just for the information of the audience here, Anwar said he would form a government on Sept 16 but he has changed the dates many times. And he was trying to entice Members of Parliament.”iii. “I was personally offered a very lucrative position, like a deputy prime ministership. These facts are not known to the world at large,” he said during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which was packed with American and foreign journalists.”iv. “And he has started trying to buy other legislative members. I think he has not accepted the result of the last elections.”v. “Anifah said Anwar was tarnishing the image of Malaysia.” (collectively hereinafter called “the Impugned Words”)The Impugned Article and the Impugned Words were and are defamatory and or libellous of our Client and in their natural and ordinary meaning and or by implication mean, meant and were understood to, inter alia, mean that:i) our Client is a dishonest person both in his private and official capacity;ii) our Client is a liar;iii) our Client is an untrustworthy person as well as an unfit politician;iv) our Client is unfit to hold public office;v) our Client is unprincipled and corrupt;vi) our Client has committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment;vii) our Client is unethical; andviii)our Client wantonly abuses his position in public and private office.By innuendo, the Impugned Article and the Impugned Words were and are defamatory and or libellous of our Client and were meant and were understood to, inter alia, mean that:i) our Client is a dishonest person both in his private and official capacity;ii) our Client is a liar;iii) our Client is an untrustworthy person as well as an unfit politician;iv) our Client is unfit to hold public office;v) our Client is unprincipled and corrupt;vi) our Client has committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonmentvii) our Client is unethical; andviii) our Client wantonly abuses his position in public and private office.Inter alia, our client contends the following in that, the Impugned Article and the Impugned Words published by you in respect of our client:-a) are bereft of any truth, vexatious, specious, fallacious and wholly uncalled for;b) are and were grossly negligent, reckless, irresponsible, deliberate, malicious and aimed to lower our client’s esteem in the eyes of the public, both locally and internationally, and expose our client to public hatred, scorn, odium, opprobrium, contempt and ridicule;c) are wholly untrue, motivated by malice, mala fides, distortion of facts suggesting moral and legal impropriety on the part of our client and are principally done in your pursuit of seeking cheap publicity /sensationalism for political and other purposes; andd) are pre-mediated and calculated to tarnish, malign, defame and seriously injure the good name and character of our client.We are further instructed that you have republished or caused it to be republished the abovementioned Impugned Article and Impugned Words and the libellous comments.The Impugned Words uttered and published by you in respect of our client and the comments against our client by you, amounts to a very serious libel on our client and have caused our client considerable distress and embarrassment. These Impugned Words published by you in respect of our client and comments made against our client are false, malicious and your attack on our client is wholly unjustified.We are therefore instructed to demand from you, which we hereby do:1) An immediate and unequivocal public retraction of the Impugned Article and the Impugned Words and the removal and retraction of all the offending and defamatory comments, forthwith;2) An apology in the terms to be approved by us as solicitors to be published in newspapers of our client’s choice.3) An undertaking by you not to repeat the above allegations and comments such as the Impugned Words or the likes of the same.Our client has also instructed us to demand damages of RM100 million from you for the injury caused to our client’s reputation.Our client has also requested us to demand payment of all legal costs that has been incurred with regard to this matter.This letter is written in accordance with the pre-action protocol prior to the institution of a libel action. We look forward to hearing from you without delay. If we do not receive a satisfactory reply within seven (7) days of the receipt of this letter, our instructions are to institute legal proceedings against you. In the meantime, our client reserves all our client’s rights in this matter.Please acknowledge receipt accordingly.Thank you.

Friday, May 8, 2009

What RM25 million can buy, something that goes hee-haw (UPDATED)Posted by adminFriday, 08 May 2009 18:54Do I hear a nationwide boycott in the making? Or are the Chinese still going to continue giving money to Vincent Tan and then blame the Malays for what happened in Perak?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hee: I didn't use pepper spray

Hee described the sitting as a "nightmare" and claimed that her former DAP colleagues were out to harass her.

She also complained that she was negatively portrayed by press reports.

She said that the note thrown at her was a RM1 note, not a RM50 note as reported in the media.

To set the record straight, she said her former party colleague Thomas Su (DAP-Pasir Pinji) waved a RM50 in front of her but did not hand her the note.

"If I was given RM50, I will keep it and give it to someone in need. But he is a ‘kedekut' (cheapskate). He held on to it and waved it. I know he is 'kedekut'." she said.

On whether she had used the pepper spray against Yew Tian Hoe (DAP-Aulong), Hee said that she pointed her hotel key-chain, not a pepper spray canister.

"It is just a key-chain. 'Hati mereka ada hantu' (They have a guilty conscience)," she said, adding that she is suffering body aches from the scuffles.

However, a clip taken during the assembly yesterday did show Hee pointing what appeared to be a pepper spray canister at Yew (photo above).

An extract from Malaysiakini, 8 May 2009

Hee Yit Foong holding device at Yew Tian Hoe in the Perak State Assembly dewan*************************************************The Deputy Speaker of the Perak State Assembly, Hee Yit Fong, was not only the key person in allowing Barisan Nasional to grab power in Perak -- and she has been going around boasting about it; that she was the key person -- but was also the key person in getting V Sivakumar removed from the hall like a sack of potatoes. And she was paid RM25 million to cross over to Barisan Nasional.

Actually, it was DAP’s fault. For some time now she had been grumbling that she is not being properly treated and was not being given due recognition but the party leadership did not do anything about her grouses.

Some say it was an internal struggle within DAP, which is not uncommon for any political party, as many, if not most, of those in politics are in it for personal gain and not to serve the rakyat. DAP is not alien to internal squabbles. No political party is, whether it is Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. In fact, these internal squabbles are ongoing even as you read this.

The straw that broke the camel’s back, or donkey’s back as many now call Hee, was when everyone was given a Camry except her. They argued that she is not able to drive anyway. So why does she need a car? Her reckoning is that she is a Deputy Speaker. So why can’t they also provide her a driver together with the car if she is not able to drive?

Whatever it may be, the thing that prompted her to abandon the party that no longer appreciated her services was the RM25 million that Vincent Tan of Berjaya paid her. Yes, she was paid a cool RM25 million in cash, more money than any Malaysia Today reader will see it many lifetimes.

Okay, so what are we going to do about it? We lament about her being a traitor. We label her a prostitute. We call her all sorts of names. But have we forgotten that there can only be prostitutes as long as there are clients who pay for the services of prostitutes. And in the case of Hee the client is Vincent Tan.

So punish Hee by all means. Call her all sorts of names if that makes you happy. But don’t forget to also punish the man who turned her into a prostitute, Vincent Tan.

How many of you still eat or shop or gamble at establishments owned by Vincent Tan? Is it not time we organised a nationwide boycott of anything and everything that Vincent Tan has an interest in. You know which establishments I am talking about. And aren’t Chinese the biggest gamblers and is not Vincent Tan getting rich with your hard-earned money which you are willingly and gladly handing over to him?Stop grumbling. Start doing something. As Lee Iacocca said, “Don’t get mad, get even!” And it is time to stop getting mad and to start getting even.

Boycott, boycott, boycott! This must be the new name of the game. Vincent Tan gave RM25 million of YOUR hard-earned money to Hee. Stop giving him more money, which he will use to buy off more Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons.

Perak is only the first. It is not going to be the last. Vincent Tan is talking to more Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers and enticing them with RM10 million to RM25 million each to cross over. By the time the next general election is upon us, maybe only Kelantan will remain a Pakatan Rakyat state. Kedah, Penang and Selangor would probably go the way of Perak in time to come.

That is Najib’s grand design. And Vincent Tan is bankrolling the entire operation. Stop cursing the Malays, in particular the Umno Malays. The Malays would not achieve much without Chinese money. And only the Chinese can punish Chinese such as Vincent Tan because the Chinese are bigger gamblers than the Malays and the Malays do not have that kind of money to burn like the Chinese do.

Do I hear a nationwide boycott in the making? Or are the Chinese still going to continue giving money to Vincent Tan and then blame the Malays for what happened in Perak?